Disputed 1619 project was CORRECT, Slavery WAS key to US Revolution; Gerald Horne proved in 2014
- Thread starter ☑︎#VoteDemocrat
- Start date
Bruh yall gotta listen to this bullshyt to see how fukking stupid their critiques are.
they're just whining. its not even challenging any of the facts
@Red Shield @Michael's Black Son @Sukairain @YouMadd? @Basil of Baker Street @SupremexKing @Cat piss martini @AndroidHero @Pirius Black @panopticon @johnedwarduado @neotheflyingone @Ishlibidish23 @SJUGRAD13 @BlueHeffner
they're just whining. its not even challenging any of the facts
@Red Shield @Michael's Black Son @Sukairain @YouMadd? @Basil of Baker Street @SupremexKing @Cat piss martini @AndroidHero @Pirius Black @panopticon @johnedwarduado @neotheflyingone @Ishlibidish23 @SJUGRAD13 @BlueHeffner
en.wikipedia.org
Georgia Experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Georgia Experiment was the colonial-era policy prohibiting the ownership of slaves in the Georgia Colony. At the urging of Georgia's proprietor, General James Oglethorpe, and his fellow colonial trustees, the British Parliament formally codified prohibition in 1735, two years after the colony's founding. The ban remained in effect until 1751, when the diminution of the Spanish threat and economic pressure from Georgia's emergent planter class forced Parliament to reverse itself.
Contents
Background[edit]
Having envisioned the Georgia colony as a haven for debtors and reformed prisoners, Oglethorpe was uncomfortable with the prospect of Georgians attaining immense wealth and coalescing into a planter aristocracy (akin to that across the border in South Carolina) through the exploitation of slave labor.[1] Oglethorpe shared his preference for an austere ethic of hard work with his fellow trustees of the colony, who believed that their preeminent social goal – moral reform through individual economic autonomy – would be undermined by the introduction of slavery.
The ban on slavery had practical military implications as well. During the mid 18th century, the Spanish maintained a foothold in North America through their colonial presence in Florida, which borders Georgia to the south. London envisioned Georgia as a buffer colony to stem Spanish expansion in the Southeast and protect the more profitable colonies to the north.[2]
The Spanish tactic of recruiting American slaves to military service in exchange for their emancipation buoyed Oglethorpe's experiment by providing a strategic incentive to minimize the slave presence in Georgia.[3]
Implementation[edit]
Believing that the anticipated agricultural output of Georgia – mostly low-labor intensity products such as silk – will lend itself better to small-scale farming by white Europeans, the trustees expected the early colonist to acquiesce their vision of the colony free of slave labor. Yet Oglethorpe underestimated the colonists' disinclination toward the intensive labor requisite for agricultural output, especially by comparison to their much wealthier and far more leisurely counterparts in South Carolina.[4] In addition, in the interest of furthering their holdings into George’s plentiful farmland, some South Carolinian plantation owners lobbied Georgians to flout the trustees' wishes.[5]
Sensing that he could not hold the ban in place through sheer force of will, Oglethorpe sought and received Parliamentary backing when the House of Commons passed legislation codifying the prohibition on slavery in Georgia in 1735.
Resistance[edit]
The fiercest opponents of the Georgia Experiment were a group known as the Malcontents, led by Patrick Tailfer and Thomas Stephens.Scottish and received no financial assistance from the trustees to aid their relocation to Georgia.[7] Stephens and Tailfer organized numerous publications and letter-writing campaigns, the most prominent which netted some 121 signatures in 1738.[8] When Oglethorpe and the trustees proved recalcitrant in the face of this public pressure, the Malcontents lobbied the House of Commons directly, including junkets by the leadership to London.[9] However, Parliament was unmoved by their arguments so long as Spain remained of military threat to the British colonies.
Battle of Bloody Marsh
Part of the War of Jenkins' Ear &
Invasion of Georgia
A Map of the Bloody Marsh area as it was in 1742
(North is down)
Date 18–19 July 1748 (new style)
Location
St. Simons Island, Georgia
31°9′24″N 81°22′47″W / 31.15667°N 81.37972°WCoordinates:
31°9′24″N 81°22′47″W / 31.15667°N 81.37972°W
Result British victory
Belligerents
Great Britain
Spain
Commanders and leaders
James Oglethorpe
Antonio Barba
Strength
650 soldiers, militia and native Indians[10] 150–200 soldiers[11]
Casualties and losses
Light 200 killed [12][13]
Repeal[edit]
In 1742, Oglethorpe won a resounding victory over the Spanish of the Battle of Bloody Marsh, effectively ending Spanish expansionism in North America. It was Oglethorpe's greatest military victory that sealed the fate of his prized Georgia Experiment, as the removal of the Spanish threats substantially decreased incentive for the House of Commons to continue the promulgation of an increasingly unpopular ban on slavery. By 1750, the trustees acquiesced to Georgia's demand for slave labor[14] and in that year Parliament revised the act of 1735 to allow slavery as of January 1, 1751.[15]
Aftermath[edit]
Once the Georgia experiment was formally abandoned, the colony quickly caught up to the regional neighbors in the acquisition of slaves. A decade after the repeal, Georgia boasted one slave for every two freemen, and slaves made up about one-half of the colony's population on the eve of the American Revolution.indigo) as a result of the importation of slave labor, Georgia had the economic luxury to support a dramatically growing population: between 1751 and 1776, the colony's population increase more than tenfold, to a total of about 33,000 (including 15,000 slaves).[16]
However, not all white Georgians were unambiguous beneficiaries. Low–skilled white labor and white artisans commanded drastically reduced wages due to the competition of slave labor.[17] The growing chasm between the ascendant planter class and a large contingent of small farmers, independent artisans, and unskilled white laborers sharply factionalized the colony both before and during the Revolutionary War. Georgia's lackluster performance in the war effort has been linked to the uncertain leadership of this comparatively new and rootless aristocracy.[18]
Notes[edit]
Georgia Experiment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Georgia Experiment was the colonial-era policy prohibiting the ownership of slaves in the Georgia Colony. At the urging of Georgia's proprietor, General James Oglethorpe, and his fellow colonial trustees, the British Parliament formally codified prohibition in 1735, two years after the colony's founding. The ban remained in effect until 1751, when the diminution of the Spanish threat and economic pressure from Georgia's emergent planter class forced Parliament to reverse itself.
Contents
Background[edit]
Having envisioned the Georgia colony as a haven for debtors and reformed prisoners, Oglethorpe was uncomfortable with the prospect of Georgians attaining immense wealth and coalescing into a planter aristocracy (akin to that across the border in South Carolina) through the exploitation of slave labor.[1] Oglethorpe shared his preference for an austere ethic of hard work with his fellow trustees of the colony, who believed that their preeminent social goal – moral reform through individual economic autonomy – would be undermined by the introduction of slavery.
The ban on slavery had practical military implications as well. During the mid 18th century, the Spanish maintained a foothold in North America through their colonial presence in Florida, which borders Georgia to the south. London envisioned Georgia as a buffer colony to stem Spanish expansion in the Southeast and protect the more profitable colonies to the north.[2]
The Spanish tactic of recruiting American slaves to military service in exchange for their emancipation buoyed Oglethorpe's experiment by providing a strategic incentive to minimize the slave presence in Georgia.[3]
Implementation[edit]
Believing that the anticipated agricultural output of Georgia – mostly low-labor intensity products such as silk – will lend itself better to small-scale farming by white Europeans, the trustees expected the early colonist to acquiesce their vision of the colony free of slave labor. Yet Oglethorpe underestimated the colonists' disinclination toward the intensive labor requisite for agricultural output, especially by comparison to their much wealthier and far more leisurely counterparts in South Carolina.[4] In addition, in the interest of furthering their holdings into George’s plentiful farmland, some South Carolinian plantation owners lobbied Georgians to flout the trustees' wishes.[5]
Sensing that he could not hold the ban in place through sheer force of will, Oglethorpe sought and received Parliamentary backing when the House of Commons passed legislation codifying the prohibition on slavery in Georgia in 1735.
Resistance[edit]
The fiercest opponents of the Georgia Experiment were a group known as the Malcontents, led by Patrick Tailfer and Thomas Stephens.Scottish and received no financial assistance from the trustees to aid their relocation to Georgia.[7] Stephens and Tailfer organized numerous publications and letter-writing campaigns, the most prominent which netted some 121 signatures in 1738.[8] When Oglethorpe and the trustees proved recalcitrant in the face of this public pressure, the Malcontents lobbied the House of Commons directly, including junkets by the leadership to London.[9] However, Parliament was unmoved by their arguments so long as Spain remained of military threat to the British colonies.
Battle of Bloody Marsh
Part of the War of Jenkins' Ear &
Invasion of Georgia
A Map of the Bloody Marsh area as it was in 1742
(North is down)
Date 18–19 July 1748 (new style)
Location
St. Simons Island, Georgia
Result British victory
Belligerents
SpainCommanders and leaders
James Oglethorpe
Antonio BarbaStrength
650 soldiers, militia and native Indians[10] 150–200 soldiers[11]
Casualties and losses
Light 200 killed [12][13]
Repeal[edit]
In 1742, Oglethorpe won a resounding victory over the Spanish of the Battle of Bloody Marsh, effectively ending Spanish expansionism in North America. It was Oglethorpe's greatest military victory that sealed the fate of his prized Georgia Experiment, as the removal of the Spanish threats substantially decreased incentive for the House of Commons to continue the promulgation of an increasingly unpopular ban on slavery. By 1750, the trustees acquiesced to Georgia's demand for slave labor[14] and in that year Parliament revised the act of 1735 to allow slavery as of January 1, 1751.[15]
Aftermath[edit]
Once the Georgia experiment was formally abandoned, the colony quickly caught up to the regional neighbors in the acquisition of slaves. A decade after the repeal, Georgia boasted one slave for every two freemen, and slaves made up about one-half of the colony's population on the eve of the American Revolution.indigo) as a result of the importation of slave labor, Georgia had the economic luxury to support a dramatically growing population: between 1751 and 1776, the colony's population increase more than tenfold, to a total of about 33,000 (including 15,000 slaves).[16]
However, not all white Georgians were unambiguous beneficiaries. Low–skilled white labor and white artisans commanded drastically reduced wages due to the competition of slave labor.[17] The growing chasm between the ascendant planter class and a large contingent of small farmers, independent artisans, and unskilled white laborers sharply factionalized the colony both before and during the Revolutionary War. Georgia's lackluster performance in the war effort has been linked to the uncertain leadership of this comparatively new and rootless aristocracy.[18]
Notes[edit]
- ^ Bartley (1983), pp. 2–3
- ^ Bartley (1983), p. 2
- ^ Gray & Wood (1976), p. 365
- ^ Wood (1984), pp. 16–17
- ^ Wood (1984), pp. 17–18
- ^ Wood (1984), p. 38
- ^ Bartley (1983), p. 4
- ^ Wood (1984), p. 29
- ^ Wood (1984), p. 40
- ^ Marley p. 261
- ^ Marley p. 262
- ^ Brooks (1972), p. 77
- ^ Brevard & Bennett (1904), p. 75
- ^ Wood (1984), p. 82
- ^ Wood (1984), p. 83
- ^ Jump up to: a b Bartley (1983), p. 5
- ^ Davis (1976), p. 98
- ^ Bartley (1983), p. 7
- Bartley, Numan V. (1983). The Creation of Modern Georgia. Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press. ISBN 0820306681.
- Brevard, Caroline Mays; Bennett, Henry Eastman (1904). A History of Florida. Cincinnati, OH: American Book Company.
- Brooks, Robert Preston (1972). History of Georgia. Boston, MA: Atkinson, Mentzer, and Co.
- Davis, Harold E. (1976). The Fledgling Province: Social and Cultural Life in Colonial Georgia, 1733–1776. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
- Gray, Ralph; Wood, Betty (1976). "The transition from indentured to involuntary servitude in colonial Georgia". Explorations in Economic History. 13 (4): 353–370. doi:10.1016/0014-4983(76)90013-9.
- Wood, Betty (1984). Slavery in Colonial Georgia (1730–1755). Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press.
erenow.net
The Georgia Experiment - SLAVERY AND EMPIRE
2-3 minutes
Rice cultivation also spread into Georgia in the mid-eighteenth century. The colony was founded in 1733 by a group of philanthropists led by James Oglethorpe, a wealthy reformer whose causes included improved conditions for imprisoned debtors and the abolition of slavery. Oglethorpe hoped to establish a haven where the “worthy poor” of England could enjoy economic opportunity. The government in London supported the creation of Georgia to protect South Carolina against the Spanish and their Indian allies in Florida.
Initially, the proprietors banned the introduction of both liquor and slaves, leading to continual battles with settlers, who desired both. By the 1740s, Georgia offered the spectacle of colonists pleading for the “English liberty” of self-government so that they could enact laws introducing slavery. In 1751, the proprietors surrendered the colony to the crown. The colonists quickly won the right to an elected assembly, which met in Savannah, Georgia’s main settlement. It repealed the ban on slavery (and liquor), as well as an early measure that had limited land holdings to 500 acres. Georgia became a miniature version of South Carolina. By 1770, as many as 15,000 slaves labored on its coastal rice plantations.
Slave Sale Broadside. This 1769 broadside advertises the sale of ninety-four slaves who had just arrived in Charleston from West Africa. Broadsides like this one were displayed prominently by slave traders to drum up business.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the artist who created the broadside trying to convey by the way he depicted the slaves?
2. How do you think colonists, who at this very time were defending their liberty against British policies, justified importing and selling slaves?
If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!
The Georgia Experiment - SLAVERY AND EMPIRE
2-3 minutes
Rice cultivation also spread into Georgia in the mid-eighteenth century. The colony was founded in 1733 by a group of philanthropists led by James Oglethorpe, a wealthy reformer whose causes included improved conditions for imprisoned debtors and the abolition of slavery. Oglethorpe hoped to establish a haven where the “worthy poor” of England could enjoy economic opportunity. The government in London supported the creation of Georgia to protect South Carolina against the Spanish and their Indian allies in Florida.
Initially, the proprietors banned the introduction of both liquor and slaves, leading to continual battles with settlers, who desired both. By the 1740s, Georgia offered the spectacle of colonists pleading for the “English liberty” of self-government so that they could enact laws introducing slavery. In 1751, the proprietors surrendered the colony to the crown. The colonists quickly won the right to an elected assembly, which met in Savannah, Georgia’s main settlement. It repealed the ban on slavery (and liquor), as well as an early measure that had limited land holdings to 500 acres. Georgia became a miniature version of South Carolina. By 1770, as many as 15,000 slaves labored on its coastal rice plantations.
Slave Sale Broadside. This 1769 broadside advertises the sale of ninety-four slaves who had just arrived in Charleston from West Africa. Broadsides like this one were displayed prominently by slave traders to drum up business.
QUESTIONS
1. What was the artist who created the broadside trying to convey by the way he depicted the slaves?
2. How do you think colonists, who at this very time were defending their liberty against British policies, justified importing and selling slaves?
If you find an error please notify us in the comments. Thank you!
theatlantic.com
Why Conservatives Want to Cancel the 1619 Project
Adam Serwer
Objections to the appointment of Nikole Hannah-Jones to an academic chair are the latest instance of conservatives using the state to suppress ideas they consider dangerous.
Nikole Hannah-Jones is an award-winning Black journalist. She is also one of the developers of the 1619 Project, a journalistic examination of slavery’s role in shaping the American present. Last year, that work won her a Pulitzer Prize. Now it appears to have cost her a tenured chair at the University of North Carolina’s Hussman School of Journalism.
The news outlet NC Policy Watch reported on Monday that the university’s dean, chancellor, and faculty had backed Hannah-Jones’s appointment to the Knight Chair in Race and Investigative Journalism, a tenured professorship, after a “rigorous tenure process at UNC.” But in an extraordinary move, the board of trustees declined to act on that recommendation. Hannah-Jones was instead offered a five-year, nontenured appointment following public and private pressure from conservatives. Notably, other Knight Chairs at the journalism school have been tenured on its professional track, which acknowledges “significant professional experience” rather than traditional academic scholarship. Hannah-Jones’s Pulitzer and MacArthur genius grant surely qualify.
One anonymous trustee told NC Policy Watch that “the political environment made granting Hannah-Jones tenure difficult, if not impossible.” A statement from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education noted that “if it is accurate that this refusal was the result of viewpoint discrimination against Hannah-Jones, particularly based on political opposition to her appointment, this decision has disturbing implications for academic freedom.”
Adam Serwer: The fight over the 1619 project is not about the facts
If you’ve taken recent debates about free speech and censorship at face value, you might find Hannah-Jones’s denial of tenure deeply confusing. For the past five years, conservatives have been howling about the alleged censoriousness of the American left, in particular on college campuses. But the denial of tenure to Hannah-Jones shows that the real conflict is over how American society understands its present inequalities.
The prevailing conservative view is that America’s racial and economic inequalities are driven by differences in effort and ability. The work of Hannah-Jones and others suggests instead that present-day inequalities have been shaped by deliberate political and policy choices. What appears to be an argument about reexamining history is also an argument about ideology—a defense of the legitimacy of the existing social order against an account of its historical origins that suggests different policy choices could produce a more equitable society.
The 1619 Project is a particularly powerful part—but not the cause—of a Black Lives Matter–inspired reevaluation of American history that began in the waning years of the Obama administration. Many Americans were struggling to understand how a nation that had elected a Black president could retain deep racial disparities not only in the rate of poverty, access to education, and health care, but also in matters of criminal justice and political power. The election of Donald Trump, a president who understood American citizenship in religious and ethnonationalist terms, accelerated that process of reevaluation.
Like all the works this period of reevaluation has produced, the 1619 Project has its flaws—although fewer than its most fanatical critics would admit. But the details of its factual narrative were not what conservatives found most objectionable. Rather, they took issue with the ideological implications of its central conceit: that America’s true founding moment was the arrival of African slaves on America’s shores.
Hannah-Jones’s conservative detractors cast this claim as an argument that America is a fundamentally and irredeemably racist country—indeed, as NC Policy Watch notes, a columnist at the right-wing James G. Martin Center complained that the 1619 Project “seeks to reframe American history as fundamentally racist.” A different columnist at the same organization fumed that “young people—the white ones, at least—are even taught to hate themselves for the unforgivable sins of their ancestors.” The idea that ugly aspects of American history should not be taught, for fear that students—white students in particular—might draw unfavorable conclusions about America, is simply an argument against teaching history at all.
In truth, the animating premise of the 1619 Project is more threatening to the right—the idea that America can indeed be redeemed, by rectifying racial imbalances created by government policy.
The fight to define the American past is not new. In the middle of the 20th century, a massive conservative backlash erupted in California against a textbook co-written by the celebrated Black American historian John Hope Franklin. In it, Franklin offered a very different rendition of Black history from the one found in generations of American textbooks that hewed to doctrines of white supremacy and portrayed people of color in ways that were overtly racist or, at best, paternalistic. Franklin’s reevaluation of American history was, like Hannah-Jones’s, related to a national movement for Black rights.
The civil-rights movement of the mid-20th century was concurrent with the academy’s reevaluation of the Reconstruction era, whose attempts at building a genuine multiracial democracy in the South had until then been portrayed by most white scholars as a tragic mistake. Martin Luther King Jr. referred to the historian C. Vann Woodward’s The Strange Career of Jim Crow as the “historical bible” of the movement, by which he simply meant it showed that segregation had been the product of political choices rather than an inevitability. New choices could be made.
The tone of the textbook Franklin co-authored, Land of the Free, remained “resolutely patriotic,” as Joseph Moreau wrote in his account of the conflict in his book Schoolbook Nation. But this was not sufficient for the textbook’s opponents, who, Moreau wrote, believed that “history teaching existed to cultivate patriotism” and that the “debunking of historical myths or premature attempts to furnish young people with painful truths could not be countenanced.” Anxiety over the civil-rights movement, and this reevaluation of American history, fueled a white backlash against the textbook, and rewarded conservative politicians willing to exploit that sentiment. Franklin’s history was closer to the truth than the version his opponents wanted to promote—but the accuracy of the history was beside the point.
Again, it is not the case that every proposal to remedy racial inequality or fight discrimination is a good one. As my colleague Conor Friedersdorf has argued, some suggestions to remedy inequality in education are misguided or counterproductive. Good intentions do not a good idea make. But to accept that a problem exists is to accept the obligation to find a solution. And conservatives who don’t want to address America’s deep racial disparities are attempting to suppress any reading of history that suggests contemporary inequalities are the product of deliberate choices.
To that end, conservative opponents of what they derisively refer to as “wokeism” are engaged in a campaign to stigmatize such arguments, and where they can, use the state to purge them from the educational system. State legislatures are outlawing the teaching of “critical race theory” which in this context as my colleague Adam Harris reports, is ultimately a shorthand for “anything resembling an examination of America’s history with race.” The Trump administration threatened to investigate institutions of higher education that discussed systemic racism, and conservative state governments are interfering with state institutions of higher education.
In Texas, legislators are seeking to ban the teaching of the 1619 Project, and suppress the role of slavery in the state’s independence. The 1836 constitution of the Republic of Texas not only protected slavery, but also barred slave owners from emancipating the enslaved and denied “Africans, the descendants of Africans, and Indians” the ability to become citizens. The state government is seeking to prevent exhibits at the Alamo from “explaining that major figures in the Texas Revolution were slave owners.” As with the Trump White House’s “1776 Commission,” whose report reads like a Twitter thread from a cocaine-addled right-wing Wikipedia obsessive, the objective here is not a more accurate history but one that justifies the present economic and racial hierarchy, and offers conservatives, as Moreau put it in his book, a “comforting alternative to the burdens of the past.”
In the specific case of Hannah-Jones and UNC, the objective is to intimidate those who might share her views by showing that such views could cost them a job. As the conservative writer and aspiring politician J. D. Vance put it in a speech to the Claremont Institute, “If you’re fighting the values and virtues that make this country great, then the conservative movement should be about nothing if not reducing your power and if necessary destroying you.” The traditional argument between American liberals and conservatives is over what problems the state can or should remedy; the position of the Trumpist GOP is that the state is an instrument for destroying your enemies—by which its members simply mean Americans who disagree with them.
This won’t work with Hannah-Jones; in fact, I suspect it will make others more sympathetic to her arguments. But UNC’s decision also reflects an unhealthy conservative preoccupation with her as an individual—like many of us, Hannah-Jones has a combative social-media presence that has drawn critiques more personal than substantive. Although the essays from a variety of scholars and journalists published in the 1619 Project provoked a number of interesting discussions over issues such as slavery’s relationship to capitalism or health disparities, in the political debate these have been shunted aside in favor of a campaign to punish Hannah-Jones personally, and thereby discredit the 1619 Project as a whole, rather than contest its individual assertions or arguments.
Such attempts to stigmatize positions one disagrees with are a natural part of how societies form a consensus of acceptable opinion, and are distinct from using the power of the state to silence one’s opponents. But in this case, the same people who insist that harsh criticism of their ideas or behavior is a form of censorship are also highly engaged in using the state to suppress speech, on the grounds that the ideas they oppose are too dangerous to be allowed the usual protections.
The historical record shows that efforts to use the power of the state to settle an argument usually fail, although they can be successful for a time. The irony is that these awakenings about the truths of American history are the result of people attempting to warp the facts into a narrative that reassures them of their essential virtue, and subsequent generations discovering that what they were taught was but a bedtime story. These attempts to use the state to suppress ugly realities about the past are merely setting the stage for the next awakening.
@Red Shield @Michael's Black Son @Sukairain @YouMadd? @Basil of Baker Street @SupremexKing @Cat piss martini @AndroidHero @Pirius Black @panopticon @johnedwarduado @neotheflyingone @Ishlibidish23 @SJUGRAD13 @BlueHeffner
savannahnow.com
Thurmond: Why Georgias founder fought slavery
7-9 minutes
Opinion
Friday
Posted Feb 15, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Share
BY MICHAEL THURMOND
This week Georgia is celebrating the 275th anniversary of its founding by Gen. James Oglethorpe. On Feb. 12, 1733, Oglethorpe and the first settlers arrived at Yamacraw Bluff on the Savannah River, ending a difficult eight-week voyage across the Atlantic Ocean.
These original Georgians arrived in the New World, inspired by the promise of economic opportunity embodied in the Georgia plan. This bold visionary plan established Georgia as a unique economic development and social welfare experiment.
The new colony was envisioned as an “Asilum of the Unfortunate,” a place where England’s “worthy poor” could earn a living exporting goods produced on small farms. From the outset, Oglethorpe and his colleagues found slavery inconsistent with the colony’s goals, arguing that it would undermine poor, hardworking white colonists.
Oglethorpe later asserted that he and his fellow trustees prohibited slavery because it was “against the Gospel, as well as the fundamental law of England.”
The genesis of Oglethorpe’s anti-slavery advocacy can be traced to a young African prince named Job ben Jalla. Captured on the west coast of Africa in 1730, Job was subsequently enslaved on a Maryland tobacco plantation. Job’s owner violated law and custom by allowing the prince to write a letter to his father, detailing the desperate circumstances surrounding his enslavement.
Written in Arabic, the letter passed through several hands until it was placed in possession of Oglethorpe.
Prior to the founding of Georgia, Oglethorpe served as deputy governor of the Royal African Co., a British enterprise that engaged in the African slave trade. After having the impassioned letter translated, he wrote Job’s owner and promised to purchase the young man’s freedom and pay for his passage to England.
In December 1732, Job’s distant benefactor sold his stock in the Royal African Co. and severed all ties with British slaving corporation. The precocious prince arrived in London during the spring 1733 while Oglethorpe was establishing the Georgia colony in the New World.
During his 12 month stay, Job became a “roaring lion” in British society. The following year, Job completed his miraculous journey back to his native country.
Henry Bruce, a 19th century Georgia historian, concluded that Job’s history played a critical role in the evolution of Oglethorpe’s anti-slavery philosophy. His belief in human rights, freedom and justice set the stage for a historic debate in Georgia over the economic, military and moral expediency of slavery.
While Job was celebrating his return to Africa, Oglethorpe was struggling to preserve Georgia’s prohibition against the importation of slaves. The colony’s fledging economy was languishing. Pro-slavery colonists, known as” malcontents,” argued that the deteriorating economic conditions were due to the absence of relatively cheap black slave labor.
Oglethorpe, his anti-slavery supporters and the malcontents engaged in a divisive debate over the institution of slavery. A series of petitions, counter-petitions and letters were delivered to Georgia Trustees in London, extolling and decrying the advisability of permitting slave labor.
In January 1739, Oglethorpe wrote an extraordinary letter to his fellow trustees characterizing pro-slavery colonists as men consumed by “idleness” and “luxury.”
Anticipating the sentiments of 19th century abolitionists, he argued that legalizing slavery in Georgia would “occasion the misery of thousands in Africa.... and bring into perpetual slavery the poor people who now live free there.”
Finally, on July 22, 1743, Georgia most ardent defender of the slavery prohibition departed from his beloved colony. He sailed to England toward a future clouded by pending court-martial and the possibility of financial ruin.
The military charges ranged from treason to larceny. Meanwhile, reacting to numerous complaints of mismanagement from pro-slavery Georgians, British officials had also refused to reimburse Oglethorpe for substantial expenses he had incurred on behalf of the colony - pending a full accounting.
Although Oglethorpe was subsequently vindicated on all accounts, he never returned to Georgia. Less than a decade later, in August 1750, Georgia’s anti-slavery era officially ended when the trustees voted to repeal the slavery ban.
Despite the abandonment of the colony’s anti-slavery principles, Oglethorpe maintained a fatherly interest in Georgia. For the remainder of his life, the old general continued to rail against the evils of slavery. He died on June 30, 1785.
The visionary reformers who authored Georgia plan sought to resolve the glaring contradiction of pervasive poverty in the midst of wealth. They were convinced that widespread economic prosperity could not be achieved in a society dominated by slave labor.
Early state historians often ridiculed Oglethorpe and his colleagues for being overly idealistic and impractical. However, contemporary Georgians should celebrate the courage and genius of Georgia’s founding fathers because their words and deeds are an important source of enlightenment and inspiration.
Unfortunately, many of the problems that served as the catalyst for the founding of Georgia continue to plague our state: unemployment, poverty, crime and economic inequality.
Although these societal ills have yet to be eradicated, the passage of 275 years has failed to dim the brilliance or lessen the significance of Georgia’s original vision.
Michael Thurmond is Georgia’s Commissioner of Labor. He is the honorary co-chair of Georgia’s 275th anniversary celebration and author of “Freedom: Georgia’s Anti-Slavery Heritage 1733-1865.”
Sign up for daily e-mail
Wake up to the day’s top news, delivered to your inbox
Hello reader, our article commenting that you would normally see here is temporarily shut down. We still want to hear from you, so we invite you to go to our Facebook page or submit a letter to the editor.
Thurmond: Why Georgias founder fought slavery
7-9 minutes
Opinion
Friday
Posted Feb 15, 2008 at 11:30 PM
Share
BY MICHAEL THURMOND
This week Georgia is celebrating the 275th anniversary of its founding by Gen. James Oglethorpe. On Feb. 12, 1733, Oglethorpe and the first settlers arrived at Yamacraw Bluff on the Savannah River, ending a difficult eight-week voyage across the Atlantic Ocean.
These original Georgians arrived in the New World, inspired by the promise of economic opportunity embodied in the Georgia plan. This bold visionary plan established Georgia as a unique economic development and social welfare experiment.
The new colony was envisioned as an “Asilum of the Unfortunate,” a place where England’s “worthy poor” could earn a living exporting goods produced on small farms. From the outset, Oglethorpe and his colleagues found slavery inconsistent with the colony’s goals, arguing that it would undermine poor, hardworking white colonists.
Oglethorpe later asserted that he and his fellow trustees prohibited slavery because it was “against the Gospel, as well as the fundamental law of England.”
The genesis of Oglethorpe’s anti-slavery advocacy can be traced to a young African prince named Job ben Jalla. Captured on the west coast of Africa in 1730, Job was subsequently enslaved on a Maryland tobacco plantation. Job’s owner violated law and custom by allowing the prince to write a letter to his father, detailing the desperate circumstances surrounding his enslavement.
Written in Arabic, the letter passed through several hands until it was placed in possession of Oglethorpe.
Prior to the founding of Georgia, Oglethorpe served as deputy governor of the Royal African Co., a British enterprise that engaged in the African slave trade. After having the impassioned letter translated, he wrote Job’s owner and promised to purchase the young man’s freedom and pay for his passage to England.
In December 1732, Job’s distant benefactor sold his stock in the Royal African Co. and severed all ties with British slaving corporation. The precocious prince arrived in London during the spring 1733 while Oglethorpe was establishing the Georgia colony in the New World.
During his 12 month stay, Job became a “roaring lion” in British society. The following year, Job completed his miraculous journey back to his native country.
Henry Bruce, a 19th century Georgia historian, concluded that Job’s history played a critical role in the evolution of Oglethorpe’s anti-slavery philosophy. His belief in human rights, freedom and justice set the stage for a historic debate in Georgia over the economic, military and moral expediency of slavery.
While Job was celebrating his return to Africa, Oglethorpe was struggling to preserve Georgia’s prohibition against the importation of slaves. The colony’s fledging economy was languishing. Pro-slavery colonists, known as” malcontents,” argued that the deteriorating economic conditions were due to the absence of relatively cheap black slave labor.
Oglethorpe, his anti-slavery supporters and the malcontents engaged in a divisive debate over the institution of slavery. A series of petitions, counter-petitions and letters were delivered to Georgia Trustees in London, extolling and decrying the advisability of permitting slave labor.
In January 1739, Oglethorpe wrote an extraordinary letter to his fellow trustees characterizing pro-slavery colonists as men consumed by “idleness” and “luxury.”
Anticipating the sentiments of 19th century abolitionists, he argued that legalizing slavery in Georgia would “occasion the misery of thousands in Africa.... and bring into perpetual slavery the poor people who now live free there.”
Finally, on July 22, 1743, Georgia most ardent defender of the slavery prohibition departed from his beloved colony. He sailed to England toward a future clouded by pending court-martial and the possibility of financial ruin.
The military charges ranged from treason to larceny. Meanwhile, reacting to numerous complaints of mismanagement from pro-slavery Georgians, British officials had also refused to reimburse Oglethorpe for substantial expenses he had incurred on behalf of the colony - pending a full accounting.
Although Oglethorpe was subsequently vindicated on all accounts, he never returned to Georgia. Less than a decade later, in August 1750, Georgia’s anti-slavery era officially ended when the trustees voted to repeal the slavery ban.
Despite the abandonment of the colony’s anti-slavery principles, Oglethorpe maintained a fatherly interest in Georgia. For the remainder of his life, the old general continued to rail against the evils of slavery. He died on June 30, 1785.
The visionary reformers who authored Georgia plan sought to resolve the glaring contradiction of pervasive poverty in the midst of wealth. They were convinced that widespread economic prosperity could not be achieved in a society dominated by slave labor.
Early state historians often ridiculed Oglethorpe and his colleagues for being overly idealistic and impractical. However, contemporary Georgians should celebrate the courage and genius of Georgia’s founding fathers because their words and deeds are an important source of enlightenment and inspiration.
Unfortunately, many of the problems that served as the catalyst for the founding of Georgia continue to plague our state: unemployment, poverty, crime and economic inequality.
Although these societal ills have yet to be eradicated, the passage of 275 years has failed to dim the brilliance or lessen the significance of Georgia’s original vision.
Michael Thurmond is Georgia’s Commissioner of Labor. He is the honorary co-chair of Georgia’s 275th anniversary celebration and author of “Freedom: Georgia’s Anti-Slavery Heritage 1733-1865.”
Sign up for daily e-mail
Wake up to the day’s top news, delivered to your inbox
Hello reader, our article commenting that you would normally see here is temporarily shut down. We still want to hear from you, so we invite you to go to our Facebook page or submit a letter to the editor.